Vaccination - do you or don't you?

[lisalisa]

Message withdrawn

Errr, don't want to get too drawn into this as everyone's entitles to their own opinion, but LisaLisa, German Measles and Measles ARE serious diseases. We didn't "all have them when we were young", and that is thanks to widespread vaccination.

If you choose not to vaccinate your children, by all means make that an informed choice, but to say these are not serious diseases or potential killers is uninformed and wrong. My friends DD was left with permanent brain damage after catching measles last year. She nearly died .

Vaacinated babies, I understand still can get diseases though.
Also does anyone know, if there is any evidence or statistics out there to say whether vaccinated children are more healthier in general, than unvaccinated children? Or Vice Versa of course?

german measles is not a serious disease (unless you consider the unborn foetus)
This is how medical websites describe it :
"German measles is a mild viral illness caused by the rubella virus. It causes a mild feverish illness associated with a rash, and aches in the joints when it affects adults. The major reason for any attention being devoted to the eradication of this condition is the nasty effects that it has on the unborn baby (known as a fetus), when a pregnant woman catches it in early pregnancy." from Medinfo.co.uk

or
"The person is rarely ill but will have a slightly raised temperature and swollen glands on the neck and base of the skull.
The pinhead-sized, flat, red spots last about two days and need no treatment. Paracetamol will help reduce the slight fever."
from NHS Direct

Hi lisalisa-

Still not vaccinated ds2 (now almost 3). Was planning to give him tetanus at pre-school age (its the only one that particularly worries me tbh) but the single tetanus is no longer available and there's no way I'd ever give hima 5 in 1. So he'll have to wait until he's 10 and can have the single tetanus avaiable for over 10's. DS3 is due in December and we will be doing the same with him.

Was very very very relieved of our decision not to vaccinate ds2 at all with the publication of the columbia paper in June linking thimerosil with causing autism in mice with a genetic predisposition to autoimmunity. Feel like we may have had a lucky escape. DS2 is very much NT.

SOmetimes I wake up cold with fear about our decision not to vaccinate but then I wait a few days read a few things and feel better about it.

Have you got the Neudstaedter book it's very good and very reasoned.

I think the statement "unless you consider the unborn foetus" says it all.

Personally I'm very glad that, having been vaccinated against Rubella, I was able not to have to worry about catching a disease which could cause serious birth defects in my 2 children.

If all we're thinking about here is the the "I'm alright, Jack" POV, then it's a pretty sad day for humanity. What about all the people out there who have reduced immunity due to conditions such as leukaemia, whose likelihood of catching a serious disease which could kill them is significantly increased by exposure to those who are not vaccinated and may transmit one of these viruses?

It seems totally unneccessary when you think of the years of effort that went into developing vaccination, and the huge benefits that it has brougbt us in the western world.

lisalisa the only option in the UK is the 5 in 1. Unless you can get infanrix privately. Single tetanus has gone and contained thimeorsil anyway.

lulupop my eldest son is almost certainly vacination damaged and will never live an indepoendent life. We are most certainly not alright jack although I'm sure you and yours are. No-one here however pro-vax would vaccinate their child for the good of society if they thought it would damage their own child. For everyone of us our children come before anyone else's. Just the way it is.

here's the neudstaedter book for anyone interested. It is excellent. Pros and cons of the decision for each vaccination and very well referenced.

lulupop, I understand your point but I think most anti-vac people would state that they are merely taking control of/responsibility for their own lives and those of their children. If anyone fears the adverse consequences of catching any of the illnesses mentioned then they have the personal choice to get vaccinated.

plus the "good of society" argument actually gets quite shaky at lots of levels. It's basically propaganda and doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Can't go into why now as ds1 keeps turning the bloody lights off and I have a black keyboard.

You see this is my point.
If your child is vaccinated then how can my unvaccinated child put your child at risk? After all, vaccinations they tell us are effective in preventing your child catching diseases.
Something just doesn't add up there.
I never get that one.

Quick question kind of, I was told by the nurse at my gp's that they don't give Infanrix to babies those are only given as a pre-school booster. Has anyone's baby been given infanrix or was it only administered to older children? I ask because I am seriously hesitant this time round with dd2(although we are given the new five in one!), as dd1 sort of spaced out for about an hour and then screamed constantly for several more hours when she had the dtp.

I also have to say that no-one here has taken the decision lightly and understands the pros and cons and the risks. I don't think anyone takes the attituade "I'm alright Jack" as everyone here is saying they've agonised over the dicision!
As jimjams said too, at the end of the day, you have a responsibility to YOUR child to do what you think best for THEM!

The most recent thing i've found quite scary is that most of us as babies had SOME immunity to measles as it was around and we got antibodies passed down from our parents, (even if they hadn't had full blown measles). The next generation of babies, (our babies babies) will have no natural antibodies as there will be none to pass down and they will be vulnerable in their first year, the most dangerous time!
Don't know if anyone followed that and i'm NOT saying i'm totally anti-vaccine but it does make you think!

it also doesn't add up because the argument only works if you assume either that there is no risk to your child from a vaccination or that if your child is vaccine damaged then adequate compensation will be given. Neither of which is true.

One would also hope that if your child had been potentially vaccinated that thier case would be openly investiaged without predjudice. That doesn't happen. For example in our case we now know that if you take mice with a predisposition to autoimmunity and gve them thimeorsil then they a)show autistic like behaviours and b)have structural changes to the glutamate receptors in their brain. We are in the position where DS1 a) has a family history or autoimmunity stretching back like crazy on his father's side and b) had certain forms of glutamate removed from his diet 3 years ago because it sends him off the planet. Now one would think that gven the the mouse stuff has been published in a peer reviewed journal and is perfectly good science that the severity of ds1's disability would mean that the possibility that he (and others like him) have been vaccine damaged would at least be considered. But it isn't. I'm one of "those mother's" (one who happens to have a PhD in Biological Sciences and has read the original research but brain dead none the less).

A real problem with the argument as well is that it assumes that all children "taking the risk" are equally at risk of adverse reactions. This will never be true. Not enough research has been done but certainly a family history of autoimmunity is one factor that appears to increase the risk.

Lisalisa is in the position where a child of hers would have died had he been given OPV (IIRC Lisalisa- and you were told that by an immunologist(??)) So clearly her son at the time was not facing the same risk as other children on the next street. And yet she came under pressure to vaccinate and her son was only saved by a mother's instinct.

Apologies if I have your story wrong lisalisa- but that is how I remmeber it.

From our POV we were interested in what happened to ds1 - not only because I want to know why my son will never live independently having been born with that as a reasonable assumption- but because we didn't want it to happen again. DS2 is certainly fine, and we will wait to see with ds3. Trouble is it's easy to assume we're after compensation or something. We're not- I wouldn't have the energy for another battle. DS1 will ultimately have to be state supported for his entire adult life anyway. We will do what we can for him for as long as we can.

fuzzywuzzy, my dd was given all 3 baby jabs -Infanrix as there was a shortage of Dtwp at that time in my area so it CAN be done!
Don't know about now with the new 5 in 1 they're pushing though!
I know the surgeries have to send all Infanrix back and use the new 4 in 1 as a booster but i recently told my H.V that i'd consider giving dd Infanrix but not the new one and she spoke to someone higher up and they will 'allow' dd to have it!

Angeliz- in the days before vaccination any adult could be assumed to have full protection against measles - in factg any adult born before something like 1952 is officially marked down as immune to measles as they would have been exposed. So yes their babies would have had measles protection as infants. Measles in an infant is very nasty (and increases the risk of the revolting hideous fatal SSPE developing) and it is something that scares me for futurte generations. Vaccinating infants with MMR isn't very sensible as a) it doesn't work that well and b) you can get SSPE from the vaccine. I'm very pleased that I had measles as a child.

Yes that's EXACTLY what i meant,i read it the other day and i was thinking, WHAT are we doing??????????
I mean in years to come, babies will have no protection when they most need it! It's scary stuff once you get reading!

MistressMary, of course your child can't be put at risk by anyone who has been vaccinated and therefore isn't going to carry a disease.

Your point is, however, belied by the fact that if everyone adopted your POV, then your child would be put at risk by everyone else. That is what vaccination has done for us - provide those who choose not to vaccinate with the safety blanket that "these diseases are so rare that my baby won't catch one". Except, as has been seen in many affluent areas where several people in one location are following this argument, suddenly measles and other diseases are on the rise.

JimJams, I'm so sorry to hear about your child's terrible experience. I know it's a sensitive area, but don't really know why you would say "I'm sure you and yours are alright", as you don't know anything about "me and mine". In fact my DS is quite allergic to a lot of substances and, balancing that with our belief that vaccination is preferable to catching a serious disease, we opted for the MMR as separate vaccines. There was no choice for the 8/12/16 week vaccinations.

There are always going to be irreconcilable opinions on this issue. All I'm saying is there are some people who CANNOT have certain vaccines, whether that be down to allergy or chronic illness. These people should not be expected to live half a life, contained in their homes. If people want to "opt-out" of vaccination, then perhaps they should be made to stay at home and not put other susceptible people who don't have this choice, at risk.

There's a child in our local primary school in remission from leaukaemia. The headmaster sent a letter out months ago asking all parents of non-vaccinated children to reconsider, as this child would not be able to attend school if there was the slightest chance that he could catch a serious illness. I know several parents who have quietly failed to do anything about their own (perfectly healthy) children's vaccination status, whilst publicly endorsing the headmaster's view. Not to put too fine a point on it, this really makes me angry.

and also, since everyone here is so well-read on the subject, if everyone was previously immune to measles having had it, then why was a vaccine introduced in the first place? Surely because it's a very serious disease with potentially serious - if not fatal - consequences?

There is a very small proportion of the population with an autoimmune condition that places them in a high risk category for vaccination damage. I totally agree that those in this group should be protected from this potential danger. But in order to keep these susceptible people safe, everyone else needs to be vaccinated, no?

Tis odd,When I was growing up children with Measles and Chicken Pox etc, were off school.
My mum would say to me "it's doing the rounds at the moment. Once you've had it you won't get it again. All children go through this. Your Brothers had it and I expect we did too."
And I did have vaccinations.

Abgeliz- It's just an example of how vaccination isn't quite as simple as its portrayed.

lulupop - I said I'm sure you and yours are as form your post I assumed you expect your child to grow up, live independently, have a job etc and I felt it was suggested that we were taking an "I'm alright jack" argument. I'm not - I just have no wish to go through the daily experience we do with ds1 with another child.

The leukaemia situation is difficult- but no vaccination is effective anyway. My son caught rubella from a vaccinated child- who spread it everywhere- as his mother assumed in all fairness that the rash he had couldn't be rubella as he had had MMR. DS (with the irresponsible mother) didn't spread it to anyone as I knew he had been exposed and kept him in. measles outbreaks have occured in fully vaccinated populations. The reality is that the child with leukaemia will be more at risk from anything- not just diseases that are vaccinated against. Including for example chickenpox (in fact chickenpox will be a much greater risk than say measles as there's so much more of it about).

My view is that I take as much responsibility for my child's health as I can. If I knew ds2 had come into contact with chickenpox for example I wouldn't visit someone who was pregnant, but ultimately I am not prepared to risk another child of mine. Not for anyone.

"these diseases are so rare that my baby won't catch one"
If you assume that those who don't vaccinate - hope that they don't catch it... you would be surprised (maybe) to hear that those people are hoping their kids will get M, M and R...

When I read this discussion I can't help but think people from both sides of the argument have a very different vision of health. In my experience (of not-vaccinated) I come accross a lot of people like Lulupop... I have sympathy for their feelings but really disagree with their views and beliefs... I don't believe it is healthy to vaccinate my child or anybody else's child. However I don't expect Lulupop to understand that - I expect her to be angry (as she says).
I don't believe doctors are always right or science for that matter.

Lisalisa - I don't have second thoughts about not vaccinating... mine have had no drugs of any kind since birth they are 5 and 3. No vitamin K, no immunization, no calpol, NOTHING...

Measles wasn't a very serious disease in 1987 when my copy of First Aid and family health - some standard family reference guide was published. According to that "In most communities of the western world (where measles has been establishedfor centuries) , the condition is mild, and hardly ever dangerous". It's become a lot more dangerous (in the medical literature) since the introduction of the MMR. A chickenpox vaccination is routine in many countries- supposedly developed as parents were taking too many days off to lok after children with chickenpox. Talk to any public health official and see whether they care if you don't vaccinate your child against meningitis C (they don't - nasty disease but not common enough to be a public health concern- even Petola - jab em johhny himself- look him up on google- was unsure about the advantages of the meningitis C vaccine)

Actually measles is more dangerous since the intorduction of the MMR as the people who are more likely to catch it are infants and teens/adults. It's more serious in those groups.

Agree with velcrobott- wish I had thought like that before taking ds1 along for his jabs. I didn't - if you'd spoken to me then I would have come out with the same arguments as lulupop.